Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

spectrumnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 179 posts

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#111

Post by tzakrajs »

Thriptic wrote: post #80
throwaway76543 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, this is absurd. Yes, it's illegal but so what? Plenty of people have MMJ cards, have scanned their ID at a dispensary, or have applied for state cultivation licenses. The idea that academia is somehow prevented from engaging in this field because it's federally illegal is not credible and it tarnishes the integrity of the field.

I agree that it is absurd that we cannot study weed legally. At the end of the day when it comes down to illegal studies, it all comes down to risk tolerance: Is an individual willing to lose their ability to practice academic science (in that they can't get a university position, can't get federal funding, and may have to absorb a felony) in order to perform a study that the government says is not ok? For most peopl…

> I will tell you right now that embarking on such a study will end poorly.

Source?

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#112

Post by tzakrajs »

carbocation wrote: post #6
stephengillie wrote: post #2

> Federal law vs. state law: While the DEA was insisting on thoroughly vetting everyone who came into contact with the tiny amount of marijuana product used in our study, the reality was that less than a mile from the hospital, anyone could walk into a boutique shop or dispensary and buy it. Why does a drug have to be legalized to be studied? If it can be purchased down the road, why are you involving the DEA at all?…

I don't think scientists are excited about criminal charges for possession and distribution.

Good luck finding someone in these progressive bastions willing to arrest you.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#113

Post by soundwave106 »

throwaway76543 wrote: post #51
Thriptic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marijuana is defined as a schedule one drug by the DEA, meaning they believe it has no accepted medical value and should not be studied. Being in possession of or trying to purchase this drug for a medical study would therefore be illegal. Publishing the results would be admitting you performed a federal crime and you would be arrested. Additionally, human studies require approval by an on site or third party institu…

Look, this is absurd. Yes, it's illegal but so what? Plenty of people have MMJ cards, have scanned their ID at a dispensary, or have applied for state cultivation licenses. The idea that academia is somehow prevented from engaging in this field because it's federally illegal is not credible and it tarnishes the integrity of the field.

My understanding is that it is possible, but involves a lot of bureaucratic red tape. (https://www.factcheck.org/wp-content/cache/wp-rocket/www.fac...)

I imagine that in some locales, the political climate is such that what Thriptic is saying is quite the reality -- it is much too risky.

That being said, with acceptance of cannabis legality growing, there does seem to be a shift where more formal organizations are involved in research, like the CMCR (https://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/) mentioned in the Factcheck article. CMCR is located in the University of California in San Diego -- it is not surprising to find out that a formal research base is in a state more politically and legally friendly to cannabis.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#114

Post by dx87 »

komali2 wrote: post #75
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And thanks to the 13th amendment, once found guilty of a crime, are legal to be slaves. Again.

This is fact, so I'm curious why it's being downvoted. >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered?

It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service#Countries_wit...

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#115

Post by Thriptic »

tzakrajs wrote: post #109
Thriptic wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggesting that study participants use a drug of unknown purity, composition, and dosing would definitely not be ok or safe. Encouraging illegal activity generally is not ok. Interviewing self-professed users without instructing them to use the drug would likely be ok but of limited value.

The drugs purity is well known in many recreational marijuana states. Have you looked over CAs laws? https://www.bcc.ca.gov/law_regs/index.html

Parent did not say they would be purchasing in a state where recreational dispensaries exist or where weed is legal at a state level. Those are unstated assumptions.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#116

Post by vkou »

dx87 wrote: post #114
komali2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fact, so I'm curious why it's being downvoted. >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered?

It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being…

Yet, in the same breath, those same people condemn punitive labour camps in communist countries.

You can't really have it both ways. Forced labour in prison creates a colossal conflict of interest for the state, even in a world where the law is just, and is applied fairly. (We don't really live in that world.)

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#117

Post by stephengillie »

mywittyname wrote: post #102
drewrv wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about other legal states but here in Washington the purity, composition, and dose of cannabis products are highly regulated and come with standardized labels.

Now sure, but what about 40 years ago?

We're discussing now, not the sociopolitical environment of the 1970s. Please stay on topic.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#118

Post by crankylinuxuser »

dx87 wrote: post #114
komali2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fact, so I'm curious why it's being downvoted. >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered?

It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property. If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being…

> It's probably getting downvoted because they're trying to evoke an emotional reaction by comparing forced labor as part of a prison sentence with literally keeping people as your personal property.

What I stated was a fact. Too bad, that you don't like facts, or that you try to dismiss the fact that it is slavery by comparing it to chattel slavery.

This isnt some bigoted law in some Southern state legislature. This is enshrined as federal constitutional law, and is also why the USA is not a signatory to numerous anti-slave treaties.

> If we're going to call any instance of the government forcing you to do a job you don't want "slavery", then here's a list of countries where the majority of the population has been forced into "slavery" without even being found guilty of a crime.

No, "I" didn't call it slavery. The 13th amendment did. Too bad the constitution isnt enough of a authoritative source. And then, you dismiss it with whataboutism. I live in the USA, and am dscussing USA constitutional law; Im not discussing your whataboutism of countries I dont live in.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#119

Post by bdamm »

colordrops wrote: post #87
e40 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

Besides the external reasons already mentioned by several commenters here, often these older white men are people who made a decision to ignore their morals and values and make sociopathic decisions for the sake of power and financial gain. Marijuana and psychedelics are drugs that induce introspection, the opposite of alcohol. A sociopath that introspects usually has a bad time. These drugs represent a threat to the…

I think you're right, to a point. Let's not forget that we're talking about a country that amended its constitution to outlaw alcohol, and this state of governmental failure remained in place for over a decade. So there's more going on here than just preferring drugs that bolster amoral decision making.
Post reply on HN